By Joe Cohen
First I wish to thank Patty Miller and Richard Fralick for their collective work on this issue. It is complex and for most of us confusing. Let’s not forget the great attention to detail and pure energy our two elected (Orcas) officials are contributing in our collective behalf in these difficult times.
The ballot measure asks us to vote:
- YES – to approve a parcel based user charge and maintain the COUNTY’s full involvement in the existing solid waste system – i.e. the County is responsible for everything. The fee is relatively modest for most and more expensive for commercial business owners. Overall there is an increase in cost for everyone (no free lunches) to both operate the existing system and repay past debt obligations, OR
- No – to reject the parcel based fee and move toward a new system that may eliminate a lot of the overhead and capital cost structures. The new system would involve the contracting of services to private enterprises (e.g. San Juan Sanitation)
On Tuesday October 11, the Council passed SJC Resolution 43-2011. To their credit this resolution provides a good analysis and overview of the choices we face. After reviewing the resolution, meeting with Richard Fralick, and in extensive email communication with Patty Miller – I have arrived at a personal decision on the ballot initiative (which itself is a bit confusing in its wording!)
It is so easy to ‘stay with what is’ (existing system) and in this case vote YES and pay a $ 100 to $ 150 parcel fee. But the seductive nature of the small ‘fee’ masks something much larger and long term most troubling.
From the SJC resolution 43-2011:
- A YES vote (PLAN A) includes funds to maintain all three existing facilities (see p2) and the system will continue to be run by the county.
- A YES vote provides new infrastructure funds of $ 1 – $3 million for a San Juan Island facility or upgrade. (see p2 ) (Why do we want to take on more debt/cost?)
- A YES vote may maintain the full staffing of about 12 full time employees (2009 level) at a cost approaching $ 900,000 annually (with cost of living increases over time and health benefit increases averaging 8% per year) – while a rejection of the measure provides funding for one part time staff to focus on long range planning (see p5).
- A NO vote (Plan B) implies a primarily route collection system for garbage and recycling (see p3) – a new contracted and quasi privatized arrangement.
- A NO vote allows the contracted entity to (possibly) continue use of the facility (on Orcas and Lopez in particular) – and some flexibility to provide both existing and new services. (see p3 & 4)
The resolution is worth reading for an in depth comparison of the two options. But for clarity – these are two very different options. The real cost saving benefits derived from PLAN B (a NO vote) are precisely because that plan is no longer saddled with existing infrastructure and labor costs (in part) and because instead a private contractor is using its existing infrastructure with the added incentive to find ways to improve service and reduce costs. The new system asks us to actually pay what it costs – period.
For me, the decision is quite simple: Reject the initiative (a NO vote) and…
- Avoid taxpayer financing of $ 1 to $ 3M of new infrastructure costs in an existing system we have acknowledged is failing.
- Eliminate most of the current staffing by the country and save approximately $ 900,000 per year going forward.
What do I think we will lose in such a change: Not much, because….
- The county is willing (as noted in the resolution) to consider leasing existing facilities to the contractor and allowing continuation of some (if not all) existing activities – and perhaps the opportunity for new services (composting).
- The contractor may be local (San Juan Sanitation) and most of the route pickup is a state regulated activity – with a prescribed 7% profit margin (maximum).
- This is a special place and just perhaps a new system solution might best serve the needs of Orcas – let’s give it a chance.
The primary issue, cost, is not as clear as Joe makes it seem. If we vote no on this issue, the staffing cost do not go away. Yes, the employees are no longer county employees, instead they are employees of whatever private company gets the contract. The overhead and capital improvement costs do not go away. Either the county pays them to maintain the county facilities, of the private company will pay them depending on how the contracts are let. In fact, all the costs that are incurred today will continue to be incurred by either the county or a private company no matter the outcome of the vote. There is no free lunch. The big difference is that the private company will be adding a profit to these costs. It has been stated that a private company might be regulated under state law, but if it was it isn’t clear what they would charge because there are too many variables.
And no matter that the outcome of the vote, we still owe $1.5mil which must be repaid somehow.
The issue of cost is not as Jim McCorison describes, above. Plan B costs are not the same as Plan A, or current.
First, Plan A has a multi-million dollar facility planned for SJI. Plan B does not.
Second, Plan A (and current) has several positions related to “desk” work, while Plan B has less than 1 FTE for the County. The labor costs are associated with direct staffing needs for tipping dumpsters and cans, and driving truck to disposal.
Third, Plan B is modeled for a modest profit of about 7%, the same as the franchise hauler’s on route-collected pick up.
Lastly, and most importantly, the total cost to the community and its citizens will be higher in the first year than Plan B, and will be far higher in just a few years, when planed labor and disposal costs for Plan A accumulate.
Please check out https://planbanotherway.com for more accurate information, or email planbanotherway@gmail.com for direct questions.
The issue, for me, is not any demonstrable cost difference. I’d pay $500/year just not to hear about solid waste ever again. THE ISSUE IS ACCOUNTABILITY. The system has been horribly mismanaged for years, yet Plan A simply puts more money into it. In case you think the management has improved, they reportedly just took delivery of two brand-new front-end loaders for the solid waste facilities, despite the fact that it was clear that this issue was going to the voters, and despite the possibility that there may BE no County facilities soon in which to use the shiny new equipment. Just as with the shiny new $325,000 public works boat, the County promises future cost savings. Meanwhile, most of us don’t have the shopping spree option–we repair our old equipment.
Sam, I doubt a private company will come in and add only a few truck drivers. They will also need people to run the transfer stations, as are presently needed, and somebody still needs to pay for the trash to be hauled off island. I’m certain that it would also mean additional supervisors and admin staff. None of that comes without costs which will be passed along in the fees charged.
My biggest concern is giving a private company a monopoly on a critical service. Private enterprise does not have a very good track record of treating customers fairly when they have a monopoly. In theory the county is answerable to the citizens and we should be able to affect change. But once a long term contract is let, barring illegal activity, a company is only answerable to itself.
If we knew exactly what the charges would be for a private company and what protections we would have against excessive increases, we could make a rational decision. But so far, we only can only try and decide based upon past experience; the county’s having been abysmal and a private company which is a complete unknown.
Myself, I’ll pick the devil I know over the devil I don’t know. At least with citizen activism we have a chance to affect change within the county.
My fear with plan B is that Racoons will get into cans on the roads and garbage will be everywhere. As an aside, why can’t bank’s and credit card companies be restricted to 7% max?